0204negligence

NegligenceNegligence

Concept of negligence – Pg 264Concept of negligence Pg 264

• Negligence caused by a failure to takeNegligence caused by a failure to take reasonable care when there is a duty to do so

• Negligence caused by carelessness(U i i l)(Unintentional)– The wrong is unintentional but negligent

– The defendant is held to be at fault for the negligent of a wrong

To succeed action for negligenceTo succeed action for negligence

Must prove 3 thingsMust prove 3 things

• Duty of careTh d f d t d th l i t d t f– The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care

• Breach of duty– There was a breach of that duty by the defendant

• Consequential injury or damage– In consequence, the claimant suffered injury or damage or financial loss Pg 264

Duty of care – Tests /Pg 265Duty of care Tests /Pg 265

• Reasonably foreseeabley– Would you reasonably be able to foresee the damage caused by your negligence ?

• Proximity• Proximity– Are you sufficiently related in proximity to the other party?

• Fair, just and reasonable– Is it fair, just and reasonable for law to impose a duty on you?on you?

• Public policy– Any public policy says that you have no duty of care y p p y y y y

DiscussDiscuss

• Activity 1 page 265Activity 1, page 265

Restricting the duty of careRestricting the duty of care

• You are not liable for the acts of 3rd partyYou are not liable for the acts of 3 party unless they were under your control– Vicarious liability by employer for the acts of his– Vicarious liability by employer for the acts of his employee done in the course of the employment

– Arbitrators, judges, lawyers in the judicial process are immune from civil actionare immune from civil action

Pg 265

DiscussDiscuss

• Activity 2 page 266Activity 2, page 266

Liability for economic lossLiability for economic loss

• The most common example is where a personThe most common example is where a person who has suffered physical damage – Make a claim for loss of business profit while– Make a claim for loss of business profit while damage is put right

• Other situations• Other situations – Ross v Caunters 1980

M ih d I d t i l T k S i liti Ltd 1986– Murihead v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd 1986

Pg 267

DiscussDiscuss

• Activity 3 pg 267Activity 3, pg 267

Liability for nervous shockLiability for nervous shock

• The claimant must prove a definite andThe claimant must prove a definite and identifiable psychiatric illness

• CasesCases– McLoughlin v O’Brien 1982– Alcock & others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police 1991

– Vernon v Bosley 1997– McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd 1994 Pg 268

DiscussDiscuss


Standard of careStandard of care

• The 2nd element that must be proven by a claimant in an action for negligence is that there was a breach of the duty of care by the defendant

• Do what a reasonable man would do and abstain from doing what a reasonable man would not do

• Cases– Nettleship v Weston 1971Nettleship v Weston 1971

– Pg 269 & 270

DiscussDiscuss


Loss carried by the breachLoss carried by the breach

• To decide for a claim the court considers:To decide for a claim, the court considers:– The breach of duty gave rise to the harm (Fact)

The harm was not too remote from the breach– The harm was not too remote from the breach (Law)

• A person would only be compensated if he has suffered actual loss injury damage or harm assuffered actual loss, injury, damage or harm as a consequential of another’s action Pg 272

No claimNo claim

• Claimant followed a course of actionClaimant followed a course of action regardless of the acts of the defedant

• A 3rd part is the actual cause of harm• A 3rd part is the actual cause of harm

• A complicated series of events takes place h h h f ll hsuch that no one act was the cause of all the

harm

• An intervening act by the claimant or a 3rd

party breaks the chain of causation

CausationCausation

• “But for” testBut for test

• Loss of a chance

l i l• Multiple causes

• Cases– Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington 1969

– Hotson v East Bershire Health Authority 1987

– Wisher v Essex AHA 1988

Remote of damage ‐Pg 273Remote of damage Pg 273

• Having decided whether the harm arose fromHaving decided whether the harm arose from a breach of duty, the court will finally look at whether the harm which occurred waswhether the harm which occurred was reasonably foreseeable– Cases– Cases

• The Wagon Mound 1961

• Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963

• Folley v London Borough of Sutton 2000

Pg 228

Assignment 2 ‐ Claim 2Assignment 2 Claim 2

• Tim met an accident when he was driving a car– Tim did not follow instruction of Khoa– Tim was 18 – Tim was a learner driver under supervision of Khoap

• A shop front was damaged– The car crashed into shop front

• Tracy suffered nervous shockTracy suffered nervous shock – Because she saw Tom almost hit by the accident

• Khoa injured in the accidentKh did t f t b lt– Khoa did not wear safety belt

• Khoa got brain damage– Caused by allergic reaction followed by the injection in hospital

Assignment ‐ Claim 3Assignment Claim 3

• Loot carried out repair workLoot carried out repair work

• Swish Curtain suffered loss of sales because of Loot’s repair workLoot s repair work

0204negligence

Documents